There's been a lot of press this week about Verizon's new anti-iPhone ads. The most notable is made on behalf of smartphones utilizing Google's new Android operating system. Some find this and other anti-iPhone ads bad, claiming they're ineffective. I hate them for another reason: they might indicate dashed hopes for iPhone users who thought Apple would utilize Verizon as an additional service provider, ending AT&T's exclusivity.
First, here's that Android ad if you haven't seen it:
And here's another Verizon ad that clearly targets the iPhone and AT&T: (I apologize for the low quality video, but it's the best I could find.)
These ads make clear that the iPhone is in Verizon's crosshairs. No doubt it's tired of losing market share to AT&T and has decided to take the gloves off. But there have been many rumors that AT&T's exclusivity may finally be ending in 2010. At that time Apple is rumored to be opening up the iPhone to more carriers. I think these commercials cast doubt on this possibility.
Rita Chang over at Advertising Age makes this observation, and I completely agree:
Whatever rumors were brewing a few months ago that Apple would break its exclusivity with AT&T and take its iPhone to other carriers, it's a good bet they can be put to bed for now.
Verizon is definitely burning bridges with Apple over these ads. I can't imagine how there could still be a possibility that Verizon is in the running as an additional service provider for the iPhone. This could mean one of two things: either AT&T will maintain full exclusivity at least through 2010 or other service providers will be used -- just not Verizon.
I'm extremely doubtful that Apple will want to allow AT&T to be their sole provide forever. I noted this back in August. They've got multiple carriers in other markets, and their sales would be even better if other service providers were included.
But the second possibility seems equally strange: why would they eliminate Verizon? Many people consider it to have the best network. In my experience, it's much better than T-mobile. I've never used Sprint, but people I know who have weren't impressed with its network either. Would the iPhone really benefit from the ability to utilize two more inferior service providers? Frankly, I'd stay with AT&T unless Verizon were an option.
So I'm not sure what to believe. These commercials definitely indicate that Verizon must be out of the running, at least in the near-term. But what, then, is Apple's plan for answering iPhone users gripes about the poor network?
One alternative hypothesis is that this is, in fact, part of the negotiation: Verizon is telling Apple that it's got Droid and so doesn't need the iPhone, and certainly won't agree to the kind of terms that AT&T was willing to accept to get it.
It's a very public way to send that message, but if you're Verizon it's also a way to hedge your bets by pumping up the alternative at the same time you're sending the message to Apple.
That said, I'm not sure that the vast majority of users care even a little about some of the points in the ad and in the print ads that are running now, too. "Widgets" doesn't seem compelling when Apple gives you 85,000 apps, open development doesn't seem compelling for the same reason, and I would guess that 95% of all customers never, ever change the batteries in their phones.
I doubt the ads are simply being used as a negotiation tactic; Verizon is launching a number of competitor phones and wants those phones to do well.
There are a number of issues in Verizon vs Apple
1) The iPhone uses GSM, while Verizon is CDMA. Apple would have to create new hardware to work on Verizon
2) More importantly, Verizon likes to promote its own content (VCast, etc) over its phones and it likes to brand its phones. AT&T doesn't focus on that as much. Apple likes to control all the content through its channels (App Store, iTunes, etc).
what about expandable memory, i swap out my 16gb memory card often??
~bbr
Although technically feasible, it is not trivial for Apple to add or switch to Verizon as the iPhone's US service provider for technical reasons.
Excluding the recent China deal, Apple has been able to use a single hardware design for use around the world based on the GSM standard. For Verizon to offer the iPhone, Apple would need to add a new radio chipset (for CDMA) and, perhaps, redesign the antenna (which is some work given how tightly packed the iPhone is on the inside). The China deal suggests that if the market is big enough, Apple will customize. But the long gestation and size of the Chinese market also suggests that Verizon wasn't really in the running.
There were (are?) rumors of Verizon being a possible platform for a new Apple device. I'd say the new ads make that a little less likely.
Good article, Daniel, I've only been catching the tail end of these commercials and have always wondered what they were advertising. I don't have an iPhone, but I do have AT&T (off a family plan) and am persuading my family to change over to Verizon with me. None of us are happy with our current service, and I need to be upgrading to a phone like the Droid or an iPhone for work by June. Part of the reason is also Apple, however: I think there is a point to be made for open sourcing, widgets, and the operating system in general. I've heard the Verizon Droid (wasn't it Tao for a while?) will also be able to run Flash. While expansive, it seems like Apple limits itself (AT&T as the only provider being one example), and Google looks like it will be offering a more open product.
Then again, I don't really have the time to be as literate in researching this as I would like to be, so if you or anyone else has any articles or literature on one vs. the other (Droid or other smartphones or AT&T vs. Verizon), it would be appreciated.
There are a slew of such comparison reviews you can find online by doing some searches. Here's one from yesterday put out by the San Francisco Chronicle.
I'm curious if AT&T will ever upgrade their "map" to 3G? With acquisition of old Alltel towers across the country they have a golden opportunity to do so.
I would think AT&T should work on its services. I also think that iPhone should not be attached on one network. iPhone would have been sold way more if it's not locked to AT&T. Locked phone to a carrier is old.
I'd distinguish between the commercials. The first one clearly attacks the iPhone. The second one is primarily attacking AT&T's 3G coverage area, though doing it with a play on words on the iPhone ads. The second one wouldn't rule out iPhone on Verizon the way the first does.
Interesting that Verizon's Android phone ads are praising and promising an open platform. Not Verizon's behavior with phones up to this point.
I'm sick and tired of people talking about a Verizon iPhone would be better. First Apple would take the iPhone to Verizon to take advantage and for Verizon to show off the 4G network or LTE. Verizon says it has a better 3G network that is larger but what are the big plans for LTE or 4G network? This is what an iPhone will be on so stop trying to put AT&T down by saying your 3g network is better when everyone knows Verizon iPhone will be on 4G or LTE network. Take that into account. Plus Verizon looks ultimately better than AT&T cuz AT&T had to play catch up cuz they weren't prepared for the iPhone and Verizon would have been in the same situation if the iPhone was introduced on their network. Plus who says it's all the networks fault. Think about the hardware in the phone or the software. It all must be taken into account and stop trash talking eachother. And one last thing. Lots of phones have better hardware specs than the iPhone but it's all about software and hardware combined. The application store is huge and that's the only thing that keeps apple ahead of anyone. Hardware on any phone nowdays trumps the iPhone hardware but no one has the app store behind them as apple does with the iPhone
Apple needs to open up otherwise the iPod will go the way of the old Apple computers. Apple was big before the Intel PC became mainstream. But Apple would not allow others to distribute and build the machine while the Intel type prospered in the market place. It looks like Apple is making the same mistake again and Android will become the industry standard.
The key is GSM vs CDMA. If you are going to have a world phone, it had better be GSM. I would hope that when the AT&T exclusive expires, Apple will start selling an unlocked, full-priced IPhone with removable sim cards that could be purchased in the country where the IPhone is being used much like other unlocked GSM phones. I just returned from Europe where I turned on data roaming for just a few minutes to check out a map location: $100 thank you.
However, you can buy an unlocked iPhone for full price ($900) and insert any SIM card you want. If you go to Europe for a longer time, that is the way to go. You make use of lower cost local plan and coming back you insert the AT&T SIM card and off you go. Different phone numbers? Well, use Google Voice.
Of course, all mobile phone should be open and unloacked as is in Europe.